UPC CFI 54/2024
12. Feb. 2024·EP2391947 · VERIFIABLE DEVICE ASSISTED SERVICE POLICY IMPLEMENTATION
- Verfahrensdetails
- StatusCase Closed (Keine Verletzung)VerfahrensartVerletzungKategorieHauptverletzungsklage
- Parteien
- KlägerVertreter
- Thomas Adam-Peterreins Schley
- Felix Glöckler-Peterreins Schley
- Claudia Feller-Peterreins Schley
- Christoph Horst-Peterreins Schley
- Michael Schneider-Eisenführ Speiser
- Jochen Ehlers-Eisenführ Speiser
- Désirée Heintz-Eisenführ Speiser
- Philipp Rastemborski-Eisenführ Speiser
- Karin Rosahl-Eisenführ Speiser
- Marc Fenster-Russ August & Kabat
- Reza Mirzaie-Russ August & Kabat
- Kris Davis-Russ August & Kabat
- Jason Wietholter-Russ August & Kabat
Beklagte- Samsung Electronics GmbHUnternehmen
- Samsung Electronics France S.A.S.Unternehmen
- Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd.Unternehmen
Vertreter- Denise Benz-A&O Shearman
- Division
- Munich LD
- Technologie
- Electrical engineeringDigital communication
- Sprache
- English
| Verletzung festgestellt | Median Tage bis zur ersten Entscheidung | |
|---|---|---|
| Gesamt-UPC | 53% (62/117) | 124 |
| Munich LD | Gesperrt | Gesperrt |
| Richter Matthias Zigann | Gesperrt | Gesperrt |
| Richter András Kupecz | Gesperrt | Gesperrt |
| Richter Tobias Pichlmaier | Gesperrt | Gesperrt |
| Richter Eric Augarde | Gesperrt | Gesperrt |
Vor dem UPC: Headwater Research LLC (34 Verfahren)·Samsung Group (57 Verfahren)
Dieser Streit umfasst 6 weitere Verfahren
UPC CFI 822/2025·UPC CFI 823/2025·UPC CFI 396/2024·UPC APP 15347/2025·UPC APP 29928/2024 und 1 weitere
Starten Sie die kostenlose Testphase, um die Ausgänge zu sehen.
- 2025-03-03Infringement ActionÖffentlich
Zusammenfassung: Procedural order issued by the Munich Local Division following the Interim Conference of 28 February 2025 in two consolidated infringement actions by Headwater Research LLC against Samsung. The order addressed procedural matters including inadmissibility of Samsung's invalidity attack under Art. 138(1)(e) EPC, the standing-to-sue issue, treatment of a witness statement, and admissibility of late-filed documents ZP8-ZP9. No substantive ruling on infringement or validity.
Rechtsfragen anzeigen (4)
- Inadmissibility of invalidity attack under Art. 138(1)(e) EPC
- Standing to sue
- Admissibility of written witness statement (Rule 175 RoP)
- Late-filed documents
- 2024-10-02
Zusammenfassung: Procedural order on Samsung Electronics entities' application for security for costs (Rule 158 RoP) against Claimant Headwater Research LLC, a US-based patent assertion entity. Applying the CoA standard that the claimant's financial position must give rise to legitimate and real concern about recoverability of a potential cost order, the court assessed whether EUR 200,000 security was appropriate.
Rechtsfragen anzeigen (3)
- Security for costs (Rule 158 RoP)
- Financial position of claimant
- Standards for security for costs
- —revocation counterclaim
Zusammenfassung: I. European patent 2 391 947 B1 is revoked in part to the extent of claims 1, 2, 5, 6, 10 and 35 with effect in the Federal Republic of Germany and the French Republic. II. The infringement action is dismissed. III. Headwater must bear the reasonable and proportionate legal costs and other expenses incurred by Samsung
| Dokumenttitel | Datum | Öffentlich |
|---|---|---|
| Mitteilung | 2026-09-29 | Nicht öffentlich |
| Mitteilung | 2026-09-09 | Nicht öffentlich |
| Anordnung | 2026-09-09 | Nicht öffentlich |
| Order | 2026-09-09 | Öffentlich |
| Receipt | 2026-08-25 | Nicht öffentlich |
| Cover sheet | 2026-08-25 | Nicht öffentlich |
| Document Defendant | 2026-08-25 | Nicht öffentlich |
| Mitteilung | 2026-08-21 | Nicht öffentlich |
| Cover sheet | 2025-09-29 | Nicht öffentlich |
| Application | 2025-09-29 | Nicht öffentlich |
Headwater Research LLC sued Samsung Electronics entities at the Munich Local Division for infringement of EP 2 391 947, a patent covering network management policy implementation on Android mobile devices. Samsung successfully counterclaimed for revocation, with the court finding the patent invalid for lack of inventive step both as granted and in all 24 auxiliary requests filed by Headwater; the court also ruled Samsung's Art. 138(1)(e) invalidity attack inadmissible. The infringement action was dismissed and a separate revocation counterclaim was fully upheld.
patent EP 2 391 947 lacks inventive step under Art. 56 EPC over the prior art
BeklagterRechtsgrundlage: Art. 138(1)(a) EPC; Art. 56 EPCHinweis: Samsung's invalidity attack on inventive step succeeded both against the patent as granted and against all Headwater's auxiliary requests (AR1-24), leading to full revocation.
patent EP 2 391 947 contains added matter under Art. 123(2) EPC
BeklagterRechtsgrundlage: Art. 138(1)(c) EPC; Art. 123(2) EPCHinweis: Samsung invoked added matter as one of its invalidity grounds; while the decision found invalidity primarily on inventive step, added matter was also pleaded.
invalidity attack based on Art. 138(1)(e) EPC is inadmissible under applicable national law
KlägerRechtsgrundlage: Art. 138(1)(e) EPC; applicable German and French lawHinweis: The court accepted this argument at the interim conference stage, ruling Samsung's Art. 138(1)(e) attack inadmissible.
Headwater as a non-practicing US entity with no assets other than patents must provide security for costs
BeklagterRechtsgrundlage: Art. 69(4) UPCA; R. 158 RoPHinweis: Samsung's security-for-costs application was granted by the Munich LD at EUR 100,000; the court applied the CoA standard requiring legitimate and real concern about recoverability.
the patent as amended (auxiliary requests AR1-AR1-24) should be maintained as valid
KlägerRechtsgrundlage: Art. 56 EPCBegründung: All auxiliary requests were found to lack inventive step for the same reasons as the main request; the second oral hearing scheduled for September 2025 was cancelled.
security for costs should be set at no more than EUR 100,000 and may be provided by a US bank guarantee
KlägerRechtsgrundlage: R. 158 RoPBegründung: The court set the amount at EUR 100,000 (accepting claimant's alternative) but held that a bank guarantee from a US bank was not adequate, consistent with CoA guidance.
the written witness statement of Dr. Raleigh qualifies as a full witness statement under R. 175 RoP
KlägerRechtsgrundlage: R. 175 RoPBegründung: Samsung noted the statement lacked certain requirements of R. 175 RoP; the court did not call live witnesses.
Weitere Fälle zu diesem Grundsatz ansehen.
- ZP8-ZP9 (late-filed documents admitted in response to AR1-24)Erfindungsmüh-Kombination
The claims relate to a verifiable device-assisted service policy implementation system for Android devices (network management of mobile end-user devices with OS Android 7 or higher). The claim construction was contested but the substantive analysis is not reproduced in the available excerpts.